There is a deep silence of four hundred years
during which few if any voices are heard lifted up against mechanical and
superstitious Christianity. . . . In the thirteenth and fourteen centuries, however, preaching revived through the influence
of the two great orders of monks—the Franciscans and Dominicans, founded
respectively by St. Francis of Assisium and St. Dominic. (J.C.
Carrick, Wycliffe and the Lollards [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908], 5,
113, emphasis added)
It may occasion some surprise to discover that the
doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near
the end of the fourth century. The earlier church fathers placed chief emphasis on good works such as
faith, repentance, almsgiving, prayers, submission to baptism, etc., as the
basis of salvation. They of course taught that salvation was through
Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel.
Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is
recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not
reconcile the two they would have denied the doctrine of Predestination and
perhaps also that of God's absolute Foreknowledge. They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free will.
It was hard for man to give up the idea that he could work out his own
salvation. But at last, as a result of a long, slow process, he came to the
great truth that salvation is a sovereign gift which has been bestowed
irrespective of merit; that it was fixed in eternity; and that God is the
author in all of its stages. This cardinal truth of Christianity was first
clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In
his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians,
taught an unconditional election of grace, and restricted the purposes of
redemption to the definite circle of the elect. It will not be denied by anyone
acquainted with Church History that Augustine was an eminently great and good
man, and that his labors and writings contributed more to the promotion of
sound doctrine and the revival of true religion than did those of any other man
between Paul and Luther. (Boettner, Calvinism in History, emphasis added)
The doctrine of baptism is one of the few
teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a
universal consent of the Fathers . . . From the early days of the Church,
baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts:
the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal
of the Holy Spirit. (William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995], 95-96).
First of all, it leads to what I think ought to be
for most of us [Protestants] a rather unsettling conclusion, which is that
there were no Christians prior to the Protestant Reformation. Because, you will
not be able to find, except perhaps a statement here or there out of context,
you will not be able to find any Christian theologians, teachers, writers, in
the first 14/15 centuries of Christianity clearly articulating what we would
call "justification by faith alone," or as some people would like to
call it, "forensic justification." The idea that justification is, at
its core, is a legal act in which God pardons sinners of all their sins, past,
present, and future, solely on the basis of Christ's atoning work, created
simply by faith . . .(Robert M. Bowman, 44:32
mark, "Episode 46: Hank Hanegraaff Converts to
Eastern Orthodoxy")
Yesterday, Aaron Shafovaloff
(as well as Eric Wendt, who is just plain dumb, unlike Aaron who is both stupid
and deceptive) embarrassed himself on the topic of the Great Apostasy.
While he does not believe a Great Apostasy took place, when asked where the
Proto-Protestants were, he just dismissed the issue. In reality, if one studies
the earliest Christian writings (which I have done; I doubt Aaron has beyond
quote mines from articles by the likes of William Webster and James White he
might have read) one would easily find out that the patristics believed in doctrines
antithetical to his theology, such as baptismal regeneration, infused
righteousness at justification and a rejection of imputed righteousness (and
with that, justification being transformative, not merely declarative),
rejection of eternal security, , a much higher ecclesiology than he would allow
for, belief in other authoritative sources of doctrine beyond Scripture (e.g.,
apostolic tradition), an ordained ministerial priesthood, and many other issues,
something acknowledged by more honest Protestants, such as those quoted above.
On some of these issues (using the Bible as the main source of evidence, it
being seen by our Protestant critics as the sole infallible rule of faith and
being formally sufficient), see, for e.g.:
Response
to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness
Can
our works save us? Refuting sola fide
Refuting
Christina Darlington on the Nature of "Justification" (cf. Christina
Darlington, D&C 82:7, and the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant)
Dave
Bartosiewicz vs. Transformative Justification and Refutation of Dave
Bartosiewicz on justification and the atonement being forensic
An
Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed
Theology
Not
By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
James
White (and John Owen) on Hebrews 10:29
Hebrews
6:4-9: Only Hypothetical?
King
David Refutes Reformed Soteriology
"Born
of Water and of the Spirit": The Biblical Evidence for Baptismal
Regeneration
One
topic he “poos-poos” is Apostolic Succession. However, for those who have
studied early Christian history and texts, this was pretty unanimous from the
first Christian century onwards, and was not seen as an optional belief;
indeed, it was often seen as essential to the structure of the Church and perpetuation
of the gospel. For them, it was a first-tier issue (as was the nature of the Eucharist; baptism and its relationship to salvation; conditional security of the believer; high ecclesiology and with that, the binding authority of the Church, etc).
If
Aaron wants to continue the myth that he, a Protestant, can reject a Great
Apostasy and be consistent in critiquing LDS for belief in such, will have to
engage in further mental masturbation (and self-deception) that there is a continuity
between the earliest Christians and what they believed the Gospel to be and the
central tenets of the faith and what his (blasphemous, Satanical Reformed
Protestant) “gospel” is. Of course, no one will ever claim Aaron is an honest
actor.
Unless
otherwise stated, the following comes from the 38-volume Schaff series:
1 Clement
The apostles have preached
the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God.
Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these
appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God.
Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full
assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of
God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they
appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the
Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor
was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning
bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will
appoint their bishops9 in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.” (1 Clement
42)
Ye are fond of contention,
brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation. Look
carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy
Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written
in them. There you will not find that the righteous were cast off by men who
themselves were holy. The righteous were indeed persecuted, but only by the
wicked. They were cast into prison, but only by the unholy; they were stoned,
but only by transgressors; they were slain, but only by the accursed, and such
as had conceived an unrighteous envy against them. Exposed to such sufferings,
they endured them gloriously. For what shall we say, brethren? Was Daniel cast
into the den of lions by such as feared God? Were Ananias, and Azarias, and
Mishael shut up in a furnace of fire by those who observed the great and
glorious worship of the Most High? Far from us be such a thought! Who, then,
were they that did such things? The hateful, and those full of all wickedness,
were roused to such a pitch of fury, that they inflicted torture on those who
served God with a holy and blameless purpose [of heart], not knowing that the
Most High is the Defender and Protector of all such as with a pure conscience
venerate His all-excellent name; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. But
they who with confidence endured [these things] are now heirs of glory and
honour, and have been exalted and made illustrious by God in their memorial for
ever and ever. Amen. (1 Clement 44)
Ignatius of Antioch
You must all follow the
bishop as Jesus Christ (followed) the Father. and (follow) the presbytery as
the apostles; respect the deacons as the commandment of God. Let no one do
anything apart from the bishop that has to do with the church. Let that be
regarded as a valid eucharist which is held under the bishop or to whomever he
entrusts it. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be; just
as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the whole church. lt is not permissible
apart from the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the love-feast; but
whatever he approves is also pleasing to God, that everything you do may be
sure and valid. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, translation taken from William R.
Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch [Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical
Commentary on the Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985], 238)
Irenaeus of Lyons
It is within the power of
all, therefore, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate
clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world;
and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted
bishops in the churches, and [to demonstrate] the successions of these men to
our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these
[heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which
they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the
rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also
committing the churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men
should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving
behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to
these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a
great boon [to the church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
(Against Heresies 3.3.1)
Wherefore it is incumbent
to obey the presbyters who are in the church—those who, as I have shown,
possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the
succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth,
according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to
hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble
themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as
heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or
again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all
these have fallen from the truth. And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange
fire to the altar of God—namely, strange doctrines—shall be burned up by the
fire from heaven, as were Nadab and Abiud. But such as rise up in opposition to
the truth, and exhort others against the church of God, [shall] remain among
those in hell (apud inferos), being swallowed up by an earthquake, even as those
who were with Chore, Dathan, and Abiron. But those who cleave asunder, and
separate the unity of the church, [shall] receive from God the same punishment
as Jeroboam did. (Against Heresies, 4.26.2)
Basil the Great
Of the dogmas and kerygmas
preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we
receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In
respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of
these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters
ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no
great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals. (The
Holy Spirit, 27:66)
[A]nyone . . . accepting
the Nicene Creed, is to be received without hesitation and difficulty, citing
in support of his opinion the unanimous assent of the bishops of Macedonia and
Asia. (To Neocaesareans, Epistle 204:6)
Athanasius
And before you had
received the grace of the episcopate, no one know you; but after you became
one, the laity expected you to bring them food, namely instruction from the
Scriptures . . . For if all were of the same mind as your present advisers, how
would you have become a Christian, since there would be no bishops? Or if our
successors are to inherit the state of mind, how will the Churches be able to
hold together? (To Dracontius, Epistle 49:2, 4)
Jerome
Far be it from me to censure
the successors of the apostles, who with holy words consecrate the body of
Christ, and who make us Christians. Having the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
they judge men to some extent before the day of judgment, and guard the
chastity of the bride of Christ. (To Heliodorus, Epistle 14:8)
Gregory of Nazianzus
Thus, and for these
reasons, by the vote of the whole people, not in evil fashion which has since
prevailed, nor by means of bloodshed and oppression, but in an apostolic and
spiritual manner, he is led up to the throne of St. Mark, to succeed him in
piety, no less than in office; in the latter indeed at a great distance from
him, in the former, which is the genuine right of succession, following him
closely. For the unity in doctrine deserves unity in office; and a rival
teacher sets up a rival throne; the one is a successor in reality, the other
but in name. For it is not the intruder, but he whose rights are intruded upon,
who is the successor, not the lawbreaker, but the lawfully appointed, not the
man of contrary opinions, but the man of the same faith; if this not what we
mean by successor, he succeeds in the same sense as disease to health, darkness
to light, storm to calm, and frenzy to sound sense. (Orations, 21)
Augustine
For if the lineal
succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty
and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to
whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock
will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!’
The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity
were these: Clement, Anacletus…Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus,
and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order
of succession no Donatist Bishop is found. (To Fortunatus, Epistle 53:2)
If
Aaron were to be transported to the earliest centuries of Christianity, he
would be condemned as a heretic. Yes, he would claim I would be too, but here
is the rub: I believe a Great Apostasy took place, so I can be consistent
in my approach to the early Christians, the developments in their theology (such as the
development of a high Mariology or the veneration of
icons/images). Aaron cannot—he believes there were always “true believers”
(Proto-Protestants) since day 1, although there is no evidence whatsoever for
such (outside quote mines in pop-level works).
As an aside, among the many deceptive claims Aaron made, he repeated the old canard that Joseph Smith "boasted" he did more than Jesus. On this, including 2 Cor 11:16 (which Joseph Smith quoted from) where Paul himself "boasted," as well as John 14:12 (where Jesus Himself promises his followers will do greater workers than Him), see my response to Dave Bartosiewicz:
Responding to a laughable critic on Joseph Smith's boasting
It was also telling that Aaron and Eric admitted that informed LDS do not think the Apostasy took place at Nicea (or was "finished" at Nicea), but as it is "popular" they discussed that instead of the more plausible/stronger position. This, too, shows they are not honest actors. Those with intellectual honesty try to deal with the best arguments the other side has to offer and try to present "steel man" positions. Imagine if I were to discuss Trinitarianism, present and refute Modalism, and then claim "well, that is true that informed Trinitarians are not Modalists, but many within Trinitarian groups are functionally Modalists, so it is acceptable for me to attack this position!" "Lying, disingenuous hack" would be the appropriate term to use for anyone who would do such. Then again, this is from the same idiot who does not know what "libel" or "slander" is.
Further Reading
Responses to Aaron Shafovaloff